It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
-That three seperate radar installations using different systems all made the same mistake, identifying triangular objects moving silently and taking off at impossible speeds in defiance of all known laws of engine powered flight and being identified as almost as large as battleships.
- That senior air-force officers, pilots and the Belgian ministry of defense were a not aware of US plans to deploy TR-3B's over their territory.
[I cite the TR-3B's as they seem to be one of the more commonly referred to 'experimental'vehicles the US has been working on in secret]
- That the U.S. would indeed, deploy highly experimental craft, at night, over the most densly populated region of western europe and..
-That there was some military purpose served by such deployment
-That we do indeed have a whole array of said experimental type vehicles which are light years beyond the capabliites of our en emies and closest allies and that we built them for..what, exactly? Combat applications? Spy flights?
Originally posted by Gazrok
Let me state this.
I too am a believer...and there is some good evidence out there.
However, there are some problems with the footage in question.
-That three seperate radar installations using different systems all made the same mistake, identifying triangular objects moving silently and taking off at impossible speeds in defiance of all known laws of engine powered flight and being identified as almost as large as battleships.
With the little we do know or suspect of the TR-3B, it is an advanced aircraft design, utilizing an advanced propulsion system...much like the U-2, Blackbird, Nighthawk, or Raptor was before their official announcement. All of these planes were responsible for NUMEROUS UFO reports before being revealed to the public. We already know that the US has aircraft that can not only hide from radar, but jam it, cause it to malfunction, etc. It's entirely more believable that this is the case, rather than a flying unknown battleship or mothership.
- That senior air-force officers, pilots and the Belgian ministry of defense were a not aware of US plans to deploy TR-3B's over their territory.
[I cite the TR-3B's as they seem to be one of the more commonly referred to 'experimental'vehicles the US has been working on in secret]
Why not? We've done it several times in the past with black project aircraft. Why should now be any different. We flew Nighthawks over Baghdad before GW1, and numerous Blackbird flights over friendly countries without telling them.
- That the U.S. would indeed, deploy highly experimental craft, at night, over the most densly populated region of western europe and..
Again, we've been there, done that...so why not now?
-That there was some military purpose served by such deployment
Sure, there could be a myriad of reasons... Radar jamming temporarily malfunctioning, altering of flight plan, mechanical trouble, causing it to go low, etc. or even testing capabilities. Hard to test stealth if they know you're coming...
-That we do indeed have a whole array of said experimental type vehicles which are light years beyond the capabliites of our en emies and closest allies and that we built them for..what, exactly? Combat applications? Spy flights?
SOMETHING has replaced the retired Blackbird, and I just can't believe it's satellites alone. One has to WAIT for satellites to be in position... Not so with spyplanes. We had numerous U-2 planes before announcing them, same with the Blackbird. Hell, in GW1 I remember them saying we had something like a dozen Nighthawks in the area...total BS, as I chatted with pop looking out at the tarmac of more than that number, and that was just in Yemen Since we don't know too much about the Blackbird's successor, or the TR-3B if that's what role it has, it's difficult to speculate, but it would make sense that spy reconaissance would be the mission profile to fill. A silenced, high-altitude, VTOL, stealthy craft would fit that mission profile very well indeed, with the added bonus of using a UFO coverstory if spotted.
Point #1
As for experimental planes being falsely identified as UFO's..no argument..some were..but let's look at the point a little bit closer..ok? What is not common knowledge but easily confirmable is that, unlike every other airplane/jet or combat flyer..including our unmanned spy platforms mentioned in your letter..the stealth bomber and fighter were built and delievred for service without a prototype for either having been field tested.
That speaks to me of reverse engineering..and no that is not 'proof'of anything specific, but does raise questions..how in the late 70's early 80's did we get the notion to spend billions on vehicles to be delivered to front-line units ..vehicles which never had prototypes and that had never been tested?
Point # 2
Yes we do have vehicles designed to do just that..jam signals and confuse ground radar..but that doesn't explain why they are deployed over friendly capitals without notice..nor does it answer the main question..what would happen if one crashed [as so many stealth fighters did] over civilian areas?
Particularly in the case of Mexico..and belgium..where we do not have sovereignty and would have to come up with some awfully good excuses as we tried to retrieve our experimental craft.
Nor does it posit any reason why Brussells would be suitable for such an exercise..at night, and where the triangle lights were bound to be noticed.. pretty stupid for a spy platform, don't you think?
The other platforms you mentioned were all approved by congress and all had identifiable combat related missions..like the Blackhawk for instance...
Now maybe we do randomly test these things against unaware pilots of friendly forces just to see if they are as good as we think they are...but then..if these vehicles do what the 'critics and non-believers'claim, then why not notify our allies and invite them to tests..why terrorize and demoralize the friendlies?
And as for your comment that it is hard to test stealth if they know you are coming...did you mena that? The ONLY way to truly test if your stealth tech does work is to announce you are coming and challenge the designated opponents[allies] to see if they can pick us out in their radar...which also avoids the risk of being shot down by panicked pilots given no advance warning that this is an EXERCISE.
Originally posted by Shai
This is dedicated to any and all skeptics..ones who refuse to believe in UFO's, alien life, etc...and especially those who continue to recite the party-lime rhetoric and generally using the implausible to deny the' impossible'
Originally posted by Gazrok
What you’d REALLY have to believe to be a non-believer…
Originally posted by Jonna
Well, let's see where I stand. Believer or Non-believer (even though I do not like the lable believer because it implies a belief in everything.
Originally posted by Gazrok
What you’d REALLY have to believe to be a non-believer…
5. Non-believer
I can not base proof on something that I have not experienced personally. Perhaps the 'stories' are fact or lies or misinterpretation of what they experienced. All I know is I can not make a logical judgement without something more to go on then a claim.
Originally posted by Gazrok
I wouldn't go there with the cattle mutilations...